Special Editions: Yea Or Nay?

Did they also get completely lost when Obi Wan showed up and he wasn't Ewan MacGregor?

I'm sorry, but the idea that viewers who grew up watching the PT need to be spoon-fed Hayden Christensen's image in order to understand that Anakin has just gone to Jedi heaven just doesn't make a lick of sense. Sebastian Shaw's Force ghost may have his hair back, but come on... it's very clearly the same guy that viewers just saw under the Vader mask. I've never known anyone who didn't automatically get that (again... they just saw his mask come off five minutes earlier in the movie!) nor have I ever known anyone who thought it was odd that Anakin's ghost doesn't look exactly the same way he did 25 years earlier, while Obi Wan and Yoda both look all elderly the way they did when they died. If anything, the disparity between young Anakin and grizzled old Obi Wan and Yoda is what comes across as puzzling and distracting.

 

Heck, I mean I'd be ok with Hayden being in there with some old age make up or if they reshoot the scene in ten years. But until they do that or until he reaches the right age, leave Shaw in there because otherwise it doesn't make any sense. In fact, reshooting it with an older looking Anakin would be really cool( and I'm not even a fan of Hayden's Anakin ). Being able to see how Anakin would have looked if he hadn't had turned to the dark side and lived to the Obi-One age, maybe give him a bit of a beard, who knows?
But I think you're also forgetting that more and more people actually start with the original trilogy and are confused when this scene pops up. "Why is Luke smiling at this unknown teenager's force ghost?"

 

I see what you're saying. But who on earth would let their kids watch the PT before the OT?! That's just bad parenting.

 

You're just simply not looking at it from their perspective (which is fair because, honestly, how could you).

To them (the ones that hadn't grien up with the OT) they saw Sebastian Shaw and thought he looked more like Uncle Owen than their impression of Anakin.

Trust me, I had to go through a lot of "WTF" to understand it and all it came down to was the difference between the people that were familiar with the Sebastian Shaw ghost with no Hayden reference, and those who only knew Hayden as Anakin. So my point is, I comoletely get why Lucas would do that, for continuities sake for the audience.

And as I stated before, in 10 years, Hayden will be the actual age Vader was when he died, so there you go. Insert Correct age Hayden in and everyone is happy. Right? I mean...it's not like Shaw was REALLY Vader. He appeared in one scene as a disfigured, pale and hairless dying guy and then in another as a chubby middle aged blue force ghost with hair and a bit of facial hair. That was literally his contribution to the character. He only had that one set of dialogue.

It's not THAT big of a travesty. Now, if they would have hilariously inserted Hayden's face when the mask came off...I'd be right with you....lol....picture that one.

 

Don't joke about that!!! George might hear you, and start getting ideas...

 

I understand what their perspective is. I simply don't understand how anyone in film school could honestly believe that a.) Anakin would still look like he's 22 years old by the end of ROTJ, and b.) that they were actually looking at Uncle Owen when Luke took off Vader's mask.

I'm trying really hard to be diplomatic here, but if this is what Lucas was actually trying to address by putting Hayden into that Force ghost scene, then it's the same kind of catering to the lowest common denominator that always screws movies up.

 

I think audiences are a lot smarter than you're making them out to be. I never once thought Shaw was Owen. Shaw looks quite different than Owen and it doesn't make sense for Owen to be in that scene. Just like how it doesn't make sense for 20 year old Anakin to pop up. If I was Luke, I'd be confused, I wouldn't know who's force ghost it belongs to. Besides you can see Shaw in Vader when ever he takes his mask off. In ten years, sure replace Shaw but until then, leave it alone.
And I bet you 2 billion dollars that George didn't make this change because so many people were confused by Shaw's ghost. He made the change because he could, and to tie things to his precious prequel trilogy. That's what a lot of these special edition changes come down to, George spent so much time seeing what he could do and not enough time thinking about what he should do.

 

I disagree with putting an aged Hayden in as much as a young one. I hate how they are trying to spin it like it's supposed to be Hayden. In 1983 George knew he wasn't going to use Shaw as a young Anakin in any future movies, yet he used Shaw anyway. Now he changes it and says it was always supposed to be like this. It doesn't make sense. It's a MOVIE. Cast changes happen all the time. We, the audience, can handle it. Just let the movies be the great movies they already are and stop trying to "fix" something that is not even close to being broken.

...sorry...that got a little ranty

 

I can understand that. I would prefer Shaw over aged Hayden, but would prefer aged Hayden over young Hayden if Hayden has to be in there.

 

I agree with that viewpoint. Shaw is best, though of course it does lead to a "wait, who was that guy?" moment for some people. I can understand the tie-in and attempt at continuity with putting Hayden in there, but an aged-but-recognizable Hayden would have been best. The appearance of a young Anakin standing next to the old dudes was... somewhat unsettling.

 

What would have been helpful would have been if Lucas had stuck with his original idea to cast an actor as Anakin who could conceivably look like Shaw later in life. Jake Lloyd was actually a good casting choice from this perspective (though I was never crazy about the idea of making Anakin a "Yippee!!" spouting little kid) as he had a broad, round face and features that weren't terribly far off of Shaw's. Though I don't know that it would have worked as an overall casting choice, I can absolutely see why Lucas met with Leonardo DiCaprio about the possibility of playing Anakin for Episodes 2 and 3. DiCaprio not only looks passably similar to an older Jake Lloyd, but he would also have been a closer visual match for Sebastian Shaw than Hayden Christensen was.

(Again, I'm not saying that he should have been cast in the role, but IMHO some more attention could have been paid to casting an Anakin who looked at least somewhat like the older version we see when the Vader mask finally comes off.)

But simply wedging Hayden into the end of ROTJ is a lousy way of covering for this. IMHO, better to just trust the audience to look at Vader under the mask and say, "Man, the years sure weren't kind to old Anakin, were they?" and then to see the same guy standing alongside Yoda and Obi Wan five minutes later and understand that it's Anakin.

(S. Crumb, I agree with you. I really don't think Lucas made this change to ROTJ for clarity, I think it was just a rather clumsy attempt to insert PT elements into the OT films, and to indulge his apparent inability to quit fiddling with his finished movies.)

 

I heard Paul Walker was in talks to be Anakin in Attack of the Clones.

 

That's possible. I think Lucas went through a lot of potential casting choices before settling on Hayden.

 

I don't think there is a single change to these films, since 1997, that I approve of.
I don't begrudge Lucas the right to make changes, but... like I said, I just don't approve of any of them.

I cannot get inside the head of someone who has ever thought, for example, "that Wampa looks so crappy, it would be nice if they did it differently."
I'm not saying you are wrong, or that there even is a right or wrong, I am saying that there is not a single atom of my being which understands or empathises with that notion on any level.
Films are period pieces. They are reflections, not only of the narrative ideas of the author, but of the social, political and cultural environment in which they were made. Intentionally, or unintentionally. It is unavoidable.
If I am watching a film, and find myself thinking about a prop, or costume, or special effect, or - lets open this out, and I'm speaking across all genres here - even a camera angle, an edit, the length of a shot, the composition of a shot, the score, the delivery of the dialogue, anything... and I find I am thinking "that looks crappy. I don't believe in that". Then it is probably because it is a crappy film. And it cannot be "fixed".
Yes, I can "step outside" of Star Wars and acknowledge that the Dia-Noga is crudely realised, or see that there are travelling matte boxes around space craft and so on. But that IS Star Wars. You either believe in something or you do not.
I don't "not believe" in classic films from the 40s if they are black and white, when the real world is in colour, I don't struggle to enjoy Taxi Driver because the 70s fashion looks dated.

And it is impossible to underestimate how important it is that Star Wars is a film from 1977, as much as it is a film set in a galaxy far, far away. IMO, you should not go back and revise 70s FX in Star Wars any more than you should go and digitally paint new clothing on everyone in Taxi Driver. It was made in the 70s with 70s values using 70s technology, and that permeates every pore of the frames of film in ways you cannot digitally tamper with ad hoc.
If anything, the changes to the original three Star Wars movies make me believe less. They jar. They pop me out of the movie MORE than any poorly-realised rubber mask that was filmed in the 70s or 80s ever has...

 

GiG, that may be the single best argument in favor of preserving and releasing the original OT edits that I've ever read.

I couldn't possibly agree more.

 

When it comes to the Special Editions I have always looked at it like this. IMO there is nothing wrong with the changes. May of the scenes that are enhanced add a lot of definition. And the scenes that are added include many characters that weren't even created during the OT. Putting in the few here and there from the PT to me just ties the whole saga together. I know there are many, many fans who dislike the SE. Often I, myself will sit and watch the OT on VHS. But I don't mind the SE additions. I think that without a few of the additions many people would be hating the fact that the 6 films would not be more tied together. And like others have said on here, maybe someday or after the ST, Disney will do a SE of the PT? Like I said, this is just my opinion......... May the force be with us all \m/

 

Hah.
I suppose to balance that, I will point out that I was careful to say "after 1997"... because, being a hypocrite, yes, I do approve of the addition of "Episode IV: A New Hope" to the opening crawl, and I don't have a problem with the slight variations in the sound mixes. Although I do prefer the mono mix, as that is the one I grew up being most familiar with...
Furthermore, I'm from an art background, so I do agree with the concept of a piece of work never truly "being finished". The thing is, it just isn't the norm to keep taking your work down off the gallery wall, daub a bit more paint up, then return it to the exhibition.

"Bravo! Walk away from it. Now it belongs to the ages."

 

At a certain point, if they're just going to continue to change the old movies to make them look "new", then they may as well just go ahead and recast and "reboot" the whole series.

The Mona Lisa doesn't suddenly become "better" because a graffiti artist tags it with a spray can to make it look more modern. Y'know?

<EDIT> Nice cross-post there, GiG!

 

Lets just hope Disney has enough respect for Star Wars to put in the vault before they do this.........
Disney will make their money back on the purchase of Star Wars with the ST. I truly feel that Episode 7 will be the event film of our lifetimes. So they just might make every dime back off of Episode 7 alone.

 

Don't Fox still own the rights to the OT after the Disney deal anyway... or am I behind the times here?